In Turkey blocking is done by ISPs. Each uses different methods.
They block with deep packet inspection, URL matching on HTTP websites, and IP blocking with HTTPS websites.
They even intercept and change DNS results from Google and Cloudflare.
Apparently it’s no longer mitigation, now adaptation. The desire to avoid nihilism at point is tough. I’m pushing 40 and I hope I get 25 more years, family kids are in for it.:(
I see comments like this all the time, but it doesn't happen that fast. You won't notice a big difference in your lifetime, and neither will your children, unless maybe they live in a very low area by the coast. This plays out over hundreds of years.
It's still a serious problem and we need to address it, but I keep seeing emotional reactions that ignore the science and the current predictions.
There's been a difference in the last 15 years... Look at the ocean currents. Look at the hurricanes stalling. That didn't use to happen. Look at tornado alley moving west. Look at the mass migration out of Siberia.[0] If you haven't noticed anything you aren't paying attention, or you're a gas company shill spreading misinformation.
This worldview is hyper human-centric. There are ~7735776725 people alive now. A million less is 7734776725. To keep this population alive billions of other lives are sacrificed. Yes humans and human civilization will be less affected in the short term, perhaps, or at least those that matter: i.e european northern hemisphere types. Short to medium term biosphere collapse will absolutely impact human civilization, but that is way to late for most other species.
The biosphere is not about to collapse from a couple degrees of warming. The earth has been a lot hotter, there was a time you could grow ferns in the Arctic circle.
The 10 degrees warming after the last ice age makes climate change small by comparison. Let's not forget the 400ft of sea level rise. In fact if you look at the climate record the last ten thousand years, the current level of warming is lost in the noise. It will take centuries before it's enough to really jump out on the graph.
Life will adapt and carry on, climate change is possibly only a temporary blip for the earth itself. It may even turn out to be a good thing on long enough time scales, because it's been a little too chilly for comfort here the last few million years. Repeated cycles of ice ages are no joke. If you want to see how bad that can get, lookup snowball earth. Warming is no joke either, see Venus, but a little warming might not be the end of the world.
I'm Canadian, my county was buried under 2km of ice that scoured it to bedrock just as civilization was beginning elsewhere in the world. If you are in the US, you grow your food in what used to be Canadian soil. I'm more afraid of the cold than the heat. People from Australia and the middle east likely have the opposite view.
> You won't notice a big difference in your lifetime, and neither will your children, unless maybe they live in a very low area by the coast. This plays out over hundreds of years.
...or they live in an area whose fresh water supply depends on current weather patterns or glacier levels.
Even if they don't, the water shortages in such regions could lead to war, and I believe some such regions include nuclear powers. A nuclear war between, say, Pakistan and India over water allocation will probably have serious economic effects well outside just that region.
Europeans have already noticed a "big difference" in the influx of Syrian and Afghani refugees. That invigorated anti-immigration parties, but those parties also advocated for various policies that went beyond immigration. A few million people had a huge impact on politics overall.
Now imagine the turmoil and political ramifications that could spring, even in the short term, from the flooding of Bangladesh and the migratiom of its people towards the global north.
Small changes that we'll see well before the end of this century will have huge consequences. Don't be surprised if the country doesn't exist at all by the end of the century.
Not sure what you're point is unless to say that this problem is on a long enough time horizon (where the survival rate for everyone drops to zero ...).
> I see comments like this all the time, but it doesn't happen that fast. You won't notice a big difference in your lifetime, and neither will your children
I do already, the weather is much worse than when I was a kid, much drier and the heat waves are harsher.
I think perhaps you ought to realize how childish the "it's cold outside so global warming is a myth" argument sounds. It makes you sound willfully ignorant, which I'm sure isn't what you intended.
I literally responded to a thread where someone said the world would end in 25 years, someone had a more measured response, then someone used the warm weather where they live as proof of impending disaster. Think about what I responded to.
No it's not, but it's completely symmetric to the anecdote they were replying to, which was in fact the point. We've got 6 replies so far saying mikeb85's comment is silly, but only one saying that the comment he was replying to was silly, by EXACTLY the same arguments.
It's not symmetric at all! Describing the current weather is not at all the same as describing an observed long-term trend, with associated ecological disruption.
It's quite evident that it's agenda based rationalisation. It's fine as long as we're spreading misinformation or framing data in a manner that furthers what we think the world should do. Rest of the type of misinformation and framing are dumb and pernicious of-course and need to be vilified.
I wish I didn't have a child, for his sake. The climate makes things like "retirement" really hard to think about... it just hurts to think about his future
That seems like a very dramatic overstatement. Climate change is a serious problem, but hardly past human ingenuity to deal with. It's not like your children will be in a hell world. It'll be warmer, more storms, challenges due to changing sea level and arable lands shifting etc. It won't be a cataclysm but will play out over decades and centuries.
Your child, and your children's children will be fine.
I don’t have a child, and as someone who makes money by selling my time, retirement is still really hard to think about. Until I have enough money to make money from my money, I don’t think that retirement is a realistic option. And I have enough debt from just living my life that finding that FU point where I have sufficient money is a long, long ways off. Even at my “top 10% of the US” salary.
I’m not flying anymore. Between the GHG annual personal emissions and the stunning staggering massively deadly failures of rushed Boeing product launches. Finally I will note the whole damn process is dehumanizing and terrible.
The worst part of these revelations is that the aviation industry is exalted as the standard other industries should look up to when it comes to safety.
If Boeing can't escape the perverse incentives that tempt every company, then what company can and why are we relying on this economic model to drive such a high stakes industry?
>The worst part of these revelations is that the aviation industry is exalted as the standard other industries should look up to when it comes to safety.
I don't see why that's "the worst part". Flying is the safest mode of travel, and among airliners the 737NG is one of the safest planes in aviation history. The fact that cracks have been discovered doesn't change that, and the routine inspections which have discovered these cracks and will lead to them being fixed is precisely the reason why these aircraft, and the aviation industry as a whole, are so incredibly safe.
In fact, finding and correcting faults in airplanes happens constantly. Up until the Boeing debacle this was just something that happend while nobody was looking. Now journalists are riding the scare wave generated by the relevations following the 737 max crashes and dragging all these fairly routine happenings out into the open with disproportionate coverage.
The primary reason why air travel is so safe is that each and every failure in production becomes a major news item for days.
So the system broke somehow, and the news will keep hammering it until someone somewhere learns their lesson. We hope.
Yes, they will go after a bunch of false positives too in the process, but the thing with weeding out the true negatives reliably is that you have to be paranoid about the false positives too.
Cutting the margins too fine and skipping the 'paranoid, inefficient' checks is how we got here.
Focusing a really big spotlight on the entire industry is part of the feedback loop.
The media is ignoring 80 to 90 percent of incidents that happen in aviation that lead to investigations. A fair bunch results in technical changes to aircraft, but it is mostly too boring for a layperson.
The Politics of Attention means we've always been reactive. Too much outrage. Too few eyeballs. Resulting in triage. Made worse as investigative journalism has been gutted these last few decades. Made worse as engagement driven business models (ad revenue) begat outrage culture.
>and the routine inspections which have discovered these cracks
Unfortunately this was not a routine check, it seems that routine checks did not found this issue and only after checks were done specifically to look for this issue more cracks were found.
By mile or by minute? It might seem pedantic, but it just means you're better off flying from New York to LA than driving. It doesn't mean you're better off than staying put.
Cracks are not necessarily something critical. As long as they are identified early enough the affected parts are simply added to the relevant checks (C, D, whatever) and after a predefined number of cycles or hours. Also ad-hoc checks might be required.
Aviation is the standard exactly because defects are identified and handled the way they are, they also tend to be remedied quickly. If not all affected aircraft are grounded, like the 737MAX.
These 737NG cracks can by no means be compared to the 737MAX clusterfuck. The former is pretty normal while the latter is a safety and certification issue of enormous dimensions.
> The worst part of these revelations is that the aviation industry is exalted as the standard other industries should look up to when it comes to safety.
It's crazy how much the flight experience varies between countries. I recently traveled between Sweden and Germany and the entire experience from online check-in to reaching my destination was painless and very convenient. There was very little queuing and the longest one was on the tax free when I bought water... Didn't even have to show my passport during the flights and I was never checked by security.
Returning to America always makes me feel like I'm entering a place that's slightly more dystopic and police state than Norway. From the long queues at the border crossing, to the appearance of military worship advertisements, America feels a bit weird these days.
There must have been some security checkpoint when you entered the departure area of the airport. But the rest I agree with.
I'm used to the european airports - they are unfortunately like shopping malls, and totally in your face about it. Enter through security right into a big display of perfumes and other overpriced goods, that's the standard thing.
What surprised me when I was over in Newark airport (and in NY JFK too) was actually how underexploited it was commercially. That's great, just surprising.
I flew from finland to germany yesterday and had the same experience. Checked in online, didn't wait in any lines, and never had to show an ID in the process. I am american, and did not even have to enter my passport details into the online checkin.
It's weird. I never used to be afraid of flying at all, but the 737 MAX crashes sort of "triggered" the fear for me. I still fly frequently but I find the experience terrifying now.
As a data scientist, I know the odds of something going wrong are extremely low, but unfortunately I'm not able to rationally control my emotions during flight; the fear is involuntary and difficult to suppress. It also doesn't help that I work at a large tech company and see how many bugs are in the codebase (even with some of the best software engineers in the world), and the fact that airplanes are increasingly run by software makes me feel kind of queasy.
As for direct GHG emissions, the most efficient mode of travel depends on many factors involving the models, occupancy, and route, but generally speaking, planes can become more efficient than trains for distances >= 700 miles.
Yeah, electrified rail is by far the most energy-efficient way of transportation. How that translates to CO2 emission of course depends on how the electricity is made.
There is an emerging argument that vaping is less health damaging than smoking and it likely is, however, Nicotine addiction is key to the business model and that will not change.
I think this is pretty much for occupying legal departments with benign work. At least in some European countries with strong legal lobbies, they are very welcome to do that. It is also sometimes used to advance shady trademarks that can only succeed in contrast to applications like this.
Yes! I’ve never used FB, and refuse to, as a result I miss all sorts of notification of things occurring because everyone seems to assume everyone does use it. Drives me nuts!
I keep hearing this, but all my friends just text me. I'm under 30 too. Maybe it's just that I have a small friend group. Though even my grad department informs me of events. We're all fairly close though, so maybe that makes a difference.
Sorry folks give up the ghost nuclear was dead at least 3 decades ago. Solar and wind are the future. We don’t have a decade to build a new nuclear plant, in that plan we’d need a time machine going backa decade to abate climate change that’s now locked in. I’ll spare you all the risks and externalities, it’s just dumb. Again sorry.
You don't think we will need more power than solar and wind can provide in 10 years? Our energy consumption has historically only increased, even with strong conversation campaigns, we should assume this trend will continue.
> Our energy consumption has historically only increased
From what I can tell, energy consumption per capita is lower today than 30 years ago in many developed countries, including the US. While the rest of the world is far from reaching those levels of use, it may point to a cap in the need for more power.
